Posted
by
samzenpus
on Sunday November 21, 2010 @10:48PM
from the one-of-many dept.

dkd903 writes "Mozilla wants to make it big in the Mobile world and has revealed its plans for a unique mobile app store in its annual report — 'The State of Mozilla,' which was released recently. Mozilla has already brought the desktop Firefox experience to mobile devices as the Fennec browser, which was initially launched for the Maemo platform on Nokia N900. Mozilla has designed a prototype of a mobile app store and plans to call it a 'Open Web App ecosystem.' The aim is to create an open app store platform that would consist of apps that can run on all mobile devices: — A 'Mobile Device Independent' App Store."

Free Software is NOT about it being gratis. The only reason they're usually gratis is because 1) they're done as personal projects or 2) someone can "CentOS"-it, by buying a copy and redistributing the sources (or even binaries) for free. But nothing in any Free Software license (either copyleft or not) precludes you from charging, and in fact you can even charge for copies of software you didn't wr

The idea of setting up a 'marketplace' rather than a repository is I think in direct opposition to what the FSF/GNU philosophy is. I know of no 'marketplace' where I can go and get goods for free.

I do however know of many FSF/GNU repositories that I can update my FSF/GNU machines from for no cost. Will I be able to apt-get updates from such a 'marketplace' without having to go though a screen that says, "No thanks, I really don't want to give you some money at this point."

Please, you can't even spell license. You're gasping at straws but as I showed you, charging is not in direct opposition to the FSF/GNU philosophy.

I do however know of many FSF/GNU repositories that I can update my FSF/GNU machines from for no cost. Will I be able to apt-get updates from such a 'marketplace' without having to go though a screen that says, "No thanks, I really don't want to give you some money at this point."

Unless you're using gNewSense, the GNU project does NOT decide which gets in those r

Hey hey hey, we are both on the same side here I think. Lets keep this civil. This:

Please, you can't even spell license.

Is not called for. I actually saw that slip though my spell-check as I clicked submit. But anyway, that is not the point. Please, lets keep the ad-hominem attacks down.

Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. RMS and the FSF have never changed their minds about it. It is and always OK to sell FLOSS software.

Again, easy with the ad-hominem killer. I'm on your side I think. I am just trying to make sure that the FSF/GNU model is not corrupted by the monetization of the FOSS software. You clearly argue that selling software FOSS is fine. I agree. But I am s

I apologize. I felt the tone of your last sentence was somewhat accusative, but my reply was definitively uncalled for.

Thank you.

That's not an ad-hominem, I was targeting your argument, not you. And frankly, while harsh that was what you were doing.If you feel that having a marketplace and selling GPL licensed software is wrong, fine, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. But that was never the FSF position and I find it disrespectful of you to try to put words in their mouths.

It is a standard tactic in a debate to try and rephrase your argument such that you can get your point across. I fully understand that in this day and age that...some people have taken that to a new level but that was neither my intention or what I'd hope to do. If anything I tried to further my argument about why the idea of paying for FSF/GNU software is wrong.

And I am not trying to put words into anyone's mouth. I'm actually arguing from a GNU founder's POV, Richard Stallman, and as radical

It is a standard tactic in a debate to try and rephrase your argument such that you can get your point across. I fully understand that in this day and age that...some people have taken that to a new level but that was neither my intention or what I'd hope to do. If anything I tried to further my argument about why the idea of paying for FSF/GNU software is wrong. And I am not trying to put words into anyone's mouth.

When? In your original reply, you posted only the GPL as an argument against selling FLOSS so

I'm a bit confused by this argument, but I think it's clear, Yoshi Mon, that you seem to think that selling Free Software is wrong.

Now, if we can all accept that the FSF's stance on this is that it is like Free Speech, not Free Beer, as Richard Stallman himself said. The idea of a free market does consist of the same basics of buying and selling, but it takes a different look at property. Once you have bought a piece of software you should be able to look at the code, modify the code, and redistribute yo

He's joking of course. Open a lot of windows and tabs, and Firefox will munch memory until it takes all the available memory, and then it will crash. Before that Firefox will be sloooow. The memory munching continues even when you aren't using your computer.

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. The memory gobbling, CPU gobbling was reported more than 8 years ago, and still hasn't been fixed.

Just Mozilla users?This whole concept of an "app" as define in Apple newspeak, is an mere artifact of the DRMed-to-hell platforms that are coming out.All the games, transport timetables, maps etc that you could access free on the web, you can now buy for your phone.

If the developer opportunities are good, i'm in. Problem is, calling something an App Store doesn't really change things much if you're just giving people access to a web site. Maybe they're going to focus on local apps written in html+css+js?

Problem is, they can't do that for iPhone, but they certainly could for Android.

I suppose they could do it for mobile web apps and work out a way of blocking access to people who haven't paid, like you seem to suggest. I'm sure people would be annoyed by that though (even though there's no reason it's really any worse that just selling the app itunes-style)

Problem is, they can't do that for iPhone, but they certainly could for Android.

What are you talking about? That's how Apple originally addressed the desire people had for third-party apps. It's still a perfectly valid and explicitly permitted method for running software on the iPhone.

If the developer opportunities are good, i'm in. Problem is, calling something an App Store doesn't really change things much if you're just giving people access to a web site. Maybe they're going to focus on local apps written in html+css+js?

What you're looking for are called W3C Widgets [w3.org]. W3C Widgets currently run on Opera, and Vodafone, while T-Mobile and the Nokia S60 have have near standard W3C Widget implementations. It looks like Android is working on it, but Apple is doing everything in their power to fight this (all while touting how great HTML5 is).

Maybe it is just me, but cell phones seem to require more involvement by at
least one party to ensure quality control.

All the main Linux distros do quality control implicitly when they package their binaries. For every big and not so bit piece of open source and/or Free software, there's a distro guy who makes sure it installs and at least runs when invoked. Those guys sometimes do a whole lot of work to make that happen, even.

I don't see what's so special about cell phones and app stores - especially if they run Linux under the covers anyway.

I don't see what's so special about cell phones and app stores - especially if they run Linux under the covers anyway

Not only that, you really *DON'T* have to build an app that runs in all Linux / Android distros. First you eliminate all the "fringe" distros and hardware platforms, "fringe" means niche, very few users. Then, you target the top three.

More likely it's the Verizon's, Sprints, AT&T, and Telstra's of the world that will say no. They're already starting to lock down android phones they carry. There is too much money in "apps" that they don't get piece of, at least not with Apple and not with the google marketplace. And in the cell phone worlds it's all about revenue per customer.

Although I suspect that the parent is trolling it does raise a genuine issue for iOS. Apple does not allow apps that can run arbitrary code, which is why they don't allow general purpose emulators or Flash. If Firefox on iOS can install apps they might decide it falls foul of this rule.

What I'm wondering is, are they going to have some sort of compatibility testing done, to ensure that the app will actually run on the phone? Rovio's going to develop a lightweight version of Angry Birds [arstechnica.com] for slower phones; will there be some way of automatically testing the phone to see if it's compatible, or will there just be a whole load of programs that you'll never know if you can run or not? If it's the later, I can't see this venture being very successful.

Seeing as it is coming from Mozilla you'd think these apps would be written for use on Mozilla browsers using their XUL platform. In that case these apps should as well or as poorly as the Mozilla browser itself does. The one problem might be apps requiring more processing power or ram than your phone has, which is the exact same issue on PCs.

Unfortunately, neither my old iphone or new android phone can easily search and install apps from this "web" you speak of. And I hear that apps are popular with the "users". Having a new standard - platform independent apps - and a non-creepy selection criteria sounds like a win for people who use phones, encouraging competition and keeping us all interoperable.

I'm glad Mozilla is working on this, because no one else seems to give a damn about both openness and competition.

I'd be interested in seeing an app store moderated by a free software foundation. I think it could attract a lot of talented developers. It would free us from the walled garden and the android market is being drowned by a flood of low quality development. For example, if you look for a live wallpaper, there are hundreds of applications from just a few of the same developers. Developers should be restricted in the amount of applications that they slapped together which they are allowed to release. A foundation like Mozilla understands good software.

Cloud applications are making a good fight, but in reality local applications/games in javascript and webgl are the future. Both of these types of web applications could be distributed through mozilla. I'd be willing to part with the same 30% that Apple takes from my pie, if the store garners a decent customer base.

but in reality local applications/games in javascript and webgl are the future

Games will never have a primary future in javascript/webgl. They simply give up way too much CPU and platform potential. Sure you are going to see a lot of javascript/webgl games, but it's just not ever going to be "the future" of gaming. It might be for applications, although I think they jury is far, far out on that and I'm doubtful for the same reasons.

That's because you're still clinging to the idea that AAA games are the future. They're not even the present.

It's not AAA titles that really go after performance. It's the smaller developers, the indies, because they are not about making an engine that is simply good enough to carry the billion dollars of artwork to be delivered, indies are all about making an AMAZING game that often takes full advantage of some hardware features.

So you are exactly backwards in your thinking - AAA titles could live quite w

there are hundreds of applications from just a few of the same developers. Developers should be restricted in the amount of applications that they slapped together which they are allowed to release. A foundation like Mozilla understands good software.

I couldn't disagree more. More software isn't a bad thing, and stopping duplication or number of releases would be against the whole point of a free software foundation.

What's needed is a better way to distinguish good apps from bad apps; in the same way that we have on other OS's - especially Windows. Mozilla are pretty good with this on their Addons (there's a lot of crap, but you don't often see it) - I could see this going well.

As for language and where it's run, I don't see as it's that important; d

uhm, don't we have mozilla firefox mobile on the iphone? and on android as well?
BTW, that was a smart move by them. when they 'enable' the app store feature, it'll be interesting to see how apple reacts to it.

They'll do nothing - the system exists right now on the iPhone for HTML5/css/javascript based apps. It was the original method designed for the iPhone, and it is still there, documented and ok'ed by Apple as an app delivery route.

I'm sure Mozilla can do a good job, but there are already similar attempts underway - one is OpenAppMkt [tipb.com].

I guess Mozilla has an advantage in that they can bundle it with the browser, but to me it seems more like mobile users would be using such a thing than desktop users, and I don't know of any mobile devices that ship with Mozilla as the default browser.

There needs to be a browser that exposes in JavaScript a common API for phone I/O: accelerometer, multi-touch, camera, GPS. etc.

I'd also like to see a store for apps (native or HTML+JS) that charged for apps but also (1), encouraged developers to make the source of their apps available, and (2), allowed other developers to sell altered binaries on the same store, with the original author getting a cut equal to what they originally charged, and so on down the line. This would open development, while ensuring those adding value are compensated. It'd be like a software VAT [wikipedia.org].

How are web apps not open, ever? By definition if they run you can see the source, because the browser has to have the javascript/css to work...

JavaScript can be compressed/encoded/obfuscated, which makes it much harder to modify than when there are both code comments and proper function and variable names. API documentation, both client and server-side, may also be lacking.

PhoneGap looks like it's a set of SDKs that allows apps written in JavaScript to run on a number of phone OSes; not a browser for each of these OSes that allow arbitrary websites to act like device-integrated phone apps.

Does anyone know of a browser app with PhoneGap capability? Would such an app be approved by Apple?

From the first 2 opening paragraphs:
"Mozilla has already brought the desktop Firefox experience to mobile devices long back as the Fennec browser"
"Mozilla has designed a prototype of mobile app store"
GNU can take over the world, but beware the dreaded Engrish.

I love the guys at Mozilla, but damn they're good at digging a hole for themselves.

All mobile platforms have stores that offer apps. Including web stack apps, as both for iPhone, Symbian and Android, *officially approved* SDK-s exists that compile cross-platform apps driven by the built-in WebKit (plus extra API-s exposed to it, to make it an app).

This means Mozilla will be creating a niche no one is asking for, and potentially shooting their chances of being on the iPhone, as Apple has shown it may approve video players and web browsers in some cases, but it'll never approve an App Store app.

Everyone *everyone* I have seen install Mozilla's browser on a mobile says the same thing: make it faster, make it more efficient. I guess they thought this is not fancy enough, so let's put an app store clone... Sigh.

Let's say that Mozilla would need to have an EXTREMELY good app store, that starts fast, have fast and good apps that works WELL everywhere.

Not half-assed polish, but really good stuff.. for this to work. That means if they were to release Angry Birds for it for example, it would work on w7, android, iOS, Symbian, Meego with no customization, and just as well as Angry Birds for iOS/Android (and the store would have to start "instant" no delay.)

Let's say that Mozilla would need to have an EXTREMELY good app store, that starts fast, have fast and good apps that works WELL everywhere.

Not half-assed polish, but really good stuff.. for this to work. That means if they were to release Angry Birds for it for example, it would work on w7, android, iOS, Symbian, Meego with no customization, and just as well as Angry Birds for iOS/Android (and the store would have to start "instant" no delay.)

And I'm not sure they can deliver that.

Done and done: I have Angry Birds running on my Linux laptop... The Android SDK includes a phone emulator.

As far as I can tell, there's no reason phone makers can't install Android on any device they want (hell, even jailbroken iphones can run Android). Android is cross platform.

Also note: Games are hard to make perform well on so many platforms because you typically want to take full advantage of the hardware available. This is why "Minimum System Requirements" exist. At some point you have to remove fea

As I see it, app stores / software centers are meant to unify application sources and updates. This implies to me, that there should be one of it and probably the best place is on the platform level: the OS.

If we start pushing in app stores on all other software stack levels (browsers, random websites, company specific app stores - I'm sure Adobe is working on something like that -, probably more will show up) then the whole idea misses it's point. Could

As I see it, app stores / software centers are meant to unify application sources and updates. This implies to me, that there should be one of it and probably the best place is on the platform level: the OS.

Agreed, there should be one place to unify application sources and updates. I think an OS level muliti-repository system is in order. So, what we really need is the ability to add custom repositories to the "app store list", much like Linux repository management...

It's up to the app developers not to flood each repo with multiple incompatible versions; Such complications will have to be ironed out, but I would really like the choice to add alternate app stores.

Um, last time I checked making a typo wasn't illegal. As opposed to the TSA illegally molesting passengers for the audacity to buy plane tickets. I'm also unaware of any significant number of people with a legitimate cause for complaining about flashbacks induced by such a common misspelling.

It does matter to me, greatly. I buy a lot of plane tickets nowadays. I drive to the airport, park my car, go through security, and read a book. I don't actually board the plane though. I just like having TSA guys rub their hands all over me. Mmmmm....

Actually, something such as this probably wasn't a typo. It was probably ignorance. Continuing to ignore this kind of ignorance creates a mass of people who can't write, can't spell and are very unclear in what they're trying to communicate. So I agree that it's worth calling attention to. We all make mistakes sometimes, and typos DO happen. But when you see "it's" over and over and over from people who think they're typing a possessive, they're not all typos.

what the hell are you talking about? The only apps that have ads are those that you didn't pay for (try buy an app you like some time). If you're using Safari then it's not different that browsing the web with your desktop browser (although on desktop it's easier to block ads with plugins).
There is no such thing as ad injection capabilities on iOS. You better get back under the bridge before you get hit by a car.